CGV vs. SCZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGV (Conductor Global Equity Value ETF) and SCZ (iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF) are both Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities funds. CGV is actively managed, while SCZ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGV returned 11.34%/yr vs 15.93%/yr for SCZ. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGV charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for SCZ.

Performance

CGV vs. SCZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF (SCZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CGV having a 7.53% return and SCZ slightly lower at 7.29%.

CGV

• 1D: -1.57%
• 1M: -3.07%
• YTD: 7.53%
• 6M: 6.77%
• 1Y: 21.28%
• 3Y*: 11.34%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SCZ

• 1D: -2.02%
• 1M: -2.32%
• YTD: 7.29%
• 6M: 6.99%
• 1Y: 20.83%
• 3Y*: 15.93%
• 5Y*: 5.07%
• 10Y*: 8.70%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGV vs. SCZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	7.53%	23.11%	-3.34%	5.72%	3.64%
SCZ iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF	7.29%	32.08%	1.52%	12.98%	-2.97%

Correlation

The correlation between CGV and SCZ is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2022	0.82

The correlation between CGV and SCZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGV vs. SCZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGV	SCZ
Basic Materials	21.2%	10.2%
Industrials	14.3%	24.2%
Consumer Defensive	12.6%	4.7%
Energy	11.7%	3.5%
Technology	11.7%	10.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	12.3%
Financial Services	5.2%	12.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	5.9%
Utilities	4.0%	2.2%
Communication Services	3.6%	3.8%
Real Estate	1.2%	9.9%

Return for Risk

CGV vs. SCZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGV

CGV Risk / Return Rank: 42
CGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
CGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CGV Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
CGV Martin Ratio Rank: 40

SCZ

SCZ Risk / Return Rank: 41
SCZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
SCZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
SCZ Omega Ratio Rank: 41
SCZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
SCZ Martin Ratio Rank: 44

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CGV vs. SCZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) and iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF (SCZ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CGV	SCZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	1.40	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	2.01	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.76	1.83	-0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.96	6.88	-0.92

CGV vs. SCZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGV Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is comparable to the SCZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGV and SCZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGV vs. SCZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGV drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, smaller than the maximum SCZ drawdown of -61.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGV and SCZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGV	SCZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-61.86%	+45.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.13%	-11.43%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	-15.06%	-1.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.59%	-3.82%	-3.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-13.03%	+9.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.58%	3.03%	+0.55%

Volatility

CGV vs. SCZ - Volatility Comparison

Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) has a higher volatility of 5.95% compared to iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF (SCZ) at 5.14%. This indicates that CGV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGV	SCZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.95%	5.14%	+0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.72%	12.69%	+0.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.84%	15.01%	-0.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.68%	16.82%	-3.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.68%	17.20%	-3.52%

CGV vs. SCZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGV has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than SCZ's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGV vs. SCZ - Dividend Comparison

CGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.10%, more than SCZ's 3.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGV Conductor Global Equity Value ETF	5.10%	4.58%	2.87%	4.56%	0.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCZ iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF	3.25%	3.30%	3.50%	2.96%	1.99%	2.96%	1.52%	3.52%	2.79%	2.38%	2.82%	2.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGV and SCZ in my portfolio?

CGV and SCZ have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGV or SCZ?

CGV has higher volatility (5.95%) compared to SCZ (5.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGV dropped -16.64% vs SCZ's -61.86%.

Which ETF is better, CGV or SCZ?

On 3-year performance, SCZ leads with 15.93% vs 11.34% for CGV. On fees, SCZ is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, SCZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGV or SCZ?

Over the 3-year period, SCZ has performed better with a 15.93% return vs 11.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGV or SCZ?

SCZ is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for CGV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGV or SCZ?

CGV has the higher dividend yield at 5.10%, compared with 3.25% for SCZ.

What is the main difference between CGV and SCZ?

They also come from different issuers: Conductor Fund and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for CGV and 0.40% for SCZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 1.40), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.